Share this:

Like this:

Related

20 Responses

I can agree with the point that a philosophy degree can be used to go to graduate/professional school, but I still maintain that it is inferior to career-centric degrees such as computer science, at least on its own. I’m attempting to have it as one of my majors purely for its enjoyment factor.

In improving one’s economic opportunities. Philosophy doesn’t exactly bring a desired skill-set like computer science does; it may highlight qualities that the degree holder already had before, such as the ability to communicate and work harder than the general population, but such factors, I think, are better seen as necessary but not sufficient factors that lead to good employment opportunities, or, at least, not as sufficient as being able to show an employer your programming portfolio and proof of your experience in Java, C++, Python, etc.

If philosophy is to be used as a platform to go on to professional/graduate school, I think it is still limited with respect to career-centric majors. Unless significant coursework is pursued in subjects that are not required for graduation, such as upper division math classes, the scope of opportunities, of course, becomes much more limited. If the ability to apply to a humanities graduate program is being touted as a major positive here, I’m not very impressed. An advantageous situation I can imagine would be if a philosophy major was dead-set on professional school; philosophy easily lends itself to many electives or another major altogether in a way that computer science or engineering cannot. Of course, such a decision, based on my earlier commentary, rests upon the person’s intent to go on to professional school, for if that’s given up, their plan B is nowhere as great.

First, you seem to view university degrees as elaborate vocational certificates, with a one-to-one correspondence to market applications. But it has been my anecdotal experience (which I admit is not on its own worth much) that this is not the case. E.g., I was recently offered a position (which I declined) with the Office of Inspector General as a special agent of investigation (starting salary, before COL increases, was $58,000). The assessor specified that the OIG looks *especially* at philosophy majors, in particular philosophy majors who have training in formal and informal logic, for their ability to give appropriate attention and care to detail and assess dispassionately a case on the merits of evidence.

I’ve been eying an economics degree (in place of an applied mathematics degree) myself. Now on to the discussion!

“you seem to view university degrees as elaborate vocational certificates, with a one-to-one correspondence to market applications”

Maybe, but I’m trying to avoid throwing my hands up into the air and yelling, “To hell with it!” I can’t account for a philosophy major who goes into i-baking and makes $130k/year right out of college. What I’m trying to do is observe established paths with reliable data backing them, and even that’s not worth much — all of the information about job opportunities and careers, particularly in this economy, pulls us in all directions so a shot in the dark may be a necessary leap of faith.

I’m trying to avoid another case of, “Well, I hung around in X and Y, and now I’m 30 and need to rethink my career.”

“The assessor specified that the OIG looks *especially* at philosophy majors, in particular philosophy majors who have training in formal and informal logic, for their ability to give appropriate attention and care to detail and assess dispassionately a case on the merits of evidence. ”

Again, this does not single out philosophy for any particular reason. I can see pretty much any humanities major fitting the bill here, and majors that are more technical with some writing experience will fit just fine. What’s happening here is as I mentioned before: there are really no particular skills that can be pinned down here, which makes degree-independent factors the real focus; who you know, what accomplishments you have, your work history, etc. Given that, I’m arguing that such a conclusion does not imply that any major, therefore, is just as good as another.

I must simply disagree with your assertion that there are no differences in taught skill sets amongst standard areas of study in the humanities (English, literature, etc.) and philosophy. If the philosophy department is a good one, as UNF’s is, then philosophy students will learn formal logic, formal theories of knowledge and evidence, scientific methodology (if they take the appropriate classes), and meta-ethics, etc., none of which standard humanities students will encounter.

Furthermore, insofar as philosophy is concerned with formal logic, scientific methodology, meta-ethics, cognitive science / philosophy of mind, legal and political theory, decision, game, and rational choice theory, *good* metaphysics, and so on, philosophy ought not to be considered a humanity. Rather, pace Quine, philosophy ought to be considered more akin to a science (more abstract of course).

In brief, philosophy does not consist merely in writing one’s unconsidered opinions on a piece of paper- that is, not *good* philosophy. I am not certain, but I suspect your opinion on this matter is predicated on a view of philosophy which is foreign to, say, my own and those of many, many others.

All the above aside, the data clearly show that philosophy undergrads fair well in the market.

Whether you study modal logic, econometrics, or topology matters little to an employer who isn’t going to directly tap into those skills. It may seem significant from the student’s level, as you suggest, but I highly doubt the case holds for the employer. Mentioning your expertise in combinatorial invariants of spaces may convince an employer of your genius, but so can other esoteric subjects.

While a philosophy major may come away with excellent writing and debating skills, they may be characteristics necessary for getting some specific job, but rarely will they ever be sufficient ones in the sense that programming skills are.

Again, you frame this discussion in overly simplistic vocational terms. It is not that an employer seeks one who can prove logical theorems per se, it is rather that employers seek one who possesses the ability to think well about complex matters.

But the argument is really a moot point, no? For the data show that undergrad degree holders in philosophy do well in the market, and it is not that they do well as they proceed into academia; most philosophy majors do not proceed to graduate studies. Philosophy majors are employed in many market sectors.

History, English, and political science are right behind philosophy in LSAT scores — was that really supposed to disprove my point? Secondly, the first point you mention has been done to death: every major has material which requires thought about complex matters, matters which would all be esoteric to the employer — this only reinforces my point that such things are major-independent.

(2) from (1) the differences are likely given the hypothesis that philosophy majors are better analytical thinkers and possess better written skills and unlikely given the converse hypothesis or the hypothesis that there is no difference in analytical skills.

Furthermore, your point is, essentially, confused and predicated on too narrow a sample- your own anecdotal experience- and a misconception of the philosophy education in most Anglo-American universities.

Lest we wander to far afield from your initial assertion, let us recapitulate.

You asserted that a philosophy degree was inferior “[i]n improving one’s economic opportunities.”

As a general statement, the assertion is false (see the relevant data). If you wish to assert, as your many comments regarding the utility of being able to program imply, that a philosophy degree is ‘inferior’ to a computer science degree if one’s end is to find employment in programming, then your assertion uncontroversially true (and painfully obvious).

Of course there are career paths which demand particular training, but that is not the issue. The issue is rather the more general (and demonstrably false) statement that philosophy degrees are not an goods means by which to secure financially viable employment.

Without actually running a test of uniform distribution I cannot tell for certain, though at first glance I am confident the differences are significant since I see that the mean of the average scores is 153.29 and the standard deviation is 3.28. The average score for Philosophy majors is 157.4 and the average score for History majors is 155.9.

The score for history lies within one std. deviation of the mean and the score for philosophy lies within two std. deviations. If the scores normally distributed, which I suspect they are, then approx. 68% of the data will fall within one std. deviation and a further 95% of the data can be expected to lie within two.

If the history score is close to average, then it is likely it will fall within one std. deviation (it does). If the philosophy score is above average, then it is likely it will fall past one std. deviation about the mean (it does).

Without using something like a 2-sample t test, which would require reliable standard deviation for both samples, the results would essentially be trash.

Even if we were to consult the ‘eyeballing’ method you mention, a study of 165 participating schools (http://www.lsac.org/LsacResources/Research/TR/TR-09-03.pdf) found that the average score was 156.88 with a standard deviation of 5.44 for 2007 and 156.79 with a standard deviation of 5.58 for 2008, making both philosophy and history easily fall into the one standard deviation range. This is the best data I’ve been able to come up in my internet search; you are welcome to offer something else, but at the moment, this is vastly superior to 2 data points.

Thank you for finding better data. Though, I still suspect that the differences are significant, especially considering the long run differences in LSAT scores between Philosophy and history, English, literature, etc.

The point remains, however, analytical skills (critical thinking, theories of evidence, logic, informal and formal, etc.) are emphasized in most philosophy programs and courses and not emphasized in most other humanities and, for that matter, social sciences. Add in the long run superior performance of philosophy majors in GRE, LSAT, GMAT (http://www.math.duke.edu/major/whyMajor.html) and other standardized tests, and your claim that the skill sets are undifferentiated is proves false.

Considering the data on median income for philosophy undergrads and your initial claim, I am not sure why you are continuing to argue.

To end the matter, I suggest you extract yourself from your all too narrow perception and do your homework.

“The point remains, however, analytical skills … are emphasized in most philosophy programs and courses and not emphasized in most other humanities and, for that matter, social sciences.”

Ignoring the fact that economics is a social science and tops the list you provided?

“To end the matter, I suggest you extract yourself from your all too narrow perception and do your homework.”

Let’s see what you brought to the table with respect to ‘research': LSAT scores which you cannot test for significance without any standard deviation data and GRE scores which weren’t sorted by undergraduate major but were sorted by the intended field of graduate study, which you would’ve know had you actually read what you were citing (http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/994994.pdf page 18).